Halyna Hutchins Shot With Prop Gun - Alec Baldwin indicted & Hannah Gutierrez-Reed charged, 2021 #7

[Marantz4250b]

BBM. Feel free to prove it because AB has already made a legal filing as to what he was told by HH and there were witnesses.
JMO

Alec Baldwin says cinematographer told him to cock gun before fatal 'Rust' shooting: Legal filing

"Alec Baldwin once again is trying to avoid liability and accountability for his reckless actions," attorneys for Halyna Hutchins' family said in a statement.

abc7chicago.com

"Baldwin asked Hutchins whether she wanted to see him *advertiser censored* the gun, as the script required. She responded yes. Baldwin tipped the gun down somewhat so that the lens of the camera would be able to focus on his hand's action on the top of the gun. While performing this action, Baldwin asked Hutchins, 'Am I holding it too far down?' and 'Do you see that?' Hutchins responded that she could see Baldwin's action from her angle. Baldwin then pulled back the hammer, but not far enough to actually *advertiser censored* the gun. When Baldwin let go of the hammer, the gun went off," the filing says.

And this is what I'm talking about when I say that his version of events should be treated with extreme caution!

The final two sentences are plainly and simply untrue. That gun absolutely, 100%, CAN NOT under any circumstances discharge unless the hammer is retracted all the way to the full-c9ck position. The cylinder completes it's 1/6th rotation and is locked by the bolt at the bottom at the precise time that the sear engages with the firing notch on the hammer which holds it in place until the trigger is pressed. The cylinder is not in a position to present the centre of the primer to the hammer nose unless it has completed it's 1/6th rotation which it doesn't until the hammer is fully retracted.

Even if we assume that by some fault in the lockwork the cylinder was allowed to complete it's necessary rotation with a half retracted hammer then it still couldn't have discharged because there are at least two notches on the hammer which would have stopped its movement on its way forward. And, I would add, that even if those notches had failed then it is extremely unlikely that a half retraced hammer would have had enough force to fire the cartridge.

So, that statement by AB is absolutely and categorically false. Whether it's his genuine mistaken belief or an outright lie we will probably never know. Not that it makes much difference.

If he can't make a true statement as regards the gun then why should we accept anything he says as to what HH allegedly said to him?

 

[Marantz4250b]

He had to have some knowledge of HRG inexperience and previous issues with DH. There was tension on the set that should have been addressed, people walked off.

This is a good point. If he is of the opinion that she wasn't doing her job then that's even less reason to trust what she says!

 

[fluffypaste]

And this is what I'm talking about when I say that his version of events should be treated with extreme caution!

The final two sentences are plainly and simply untrue. That gun absolutely, 100%, CAN NOT under any circumstances discharge unless the hammer is retracted all the way to the full-c9ck position. The cylinder completes it's 1/6th rotation and is locked by the bolt at the bottom at the precise time that the sear engages with the firing notch on the hammer which holds it in place until the trigger is pressed. The cylinder is not in a position to present the contre of the primer to the hammer nose!

Even if we assume that by some fault in the lockwork the cylinder was allowed to complete it's necessary rotation with a half retracted hammer then it still couldn't have discharged because there are at least two notches on the hammer which would have stopped its movement. And, I would add that even if those notched had failed then it is extremely unlikely that a half retraced hammer would have had enough force to fire the cartridge.

So, that statement by AB is absolutely and categorically false. Whether it's his genuine mistaken belief or an outright lie we will probably never know. Not that it makes much difference.

If he can't make a true statement as regards the gun then why should we accept anything he says as to what HH allegedly said to him?

I believe that he believes he didn't pull the trigger. He obviously did pull it or at least touch it, but I don't believe he was lying when he said he didn't pull it. I think it is just a matter of the shock of the moment, combined with the natural inclination to want to deny such a thing, even to oneself.

 

[turaj]

It wasn't AB's job to check the gun. It wasn't AB's job to know anything about HRG. He didn't personally hire her, did he? The testimony at trial proved who was responsible to the satisfaction of this jury.

JMO

it sure seems there was enough going on on that set that the producer and star would be observant enough to see what is happening. AB is too busy stroking his own ego and on the phone. He did not intend to kill HH but he accepted the firearm from an AD not the armorer and did not check it. According to professional armorers an AD should not be handling the firearm. Where was HGR...too busy doing what?

 

[Cool Cats]

All of that coupled with her looking half-asleep, slow, or out-of-it in the first interviews (both in the truck and in the interview room) seems so complacent.

It's quite shocking actually!

Yah. Didn't she text that she got high around that day?

 

[fluffypaste]

I could easily see this going either way for AB. It's really going to depend all on the jury and how sympathetic they are.

 

[Cool Cats]

I could easily see this going either for AB. It's really going to depend all on the jury and how sympathetic they are.

They will grill him so hard on the stand over having pulled that trigger that it will be hard for him to testify but I think the jury would expect him to testify...2 Cents

 

[Marantz4250b]

I believe that he believes he didn't pull the trigger. He obviously did pull it or at least touch it, but I don't believe he was lying when he said he didn't pull it. I think it is just a matter of the shock of the moment, combined with the natural inclination to want to deny such a thing, even to oneself.

I'm inclined to agree. My point still stands, however - if he isn't correct about that, intentionally or not, then why should anything he says on the incident be accepted as being true?

 

[Marantz4250b]

They will grill him so hard on the stand over having pulled that trigger that it will be hard for him to testify but I think the jury would expect him to testify...2 Cents

I'm not sure which way he'll go on that, tbh. If he's sensible he won't testify but I suspect that his ego will get the better of him. If he does he will be absolutely eviscerated because a lot of what he has said - particularly about the gun - is simply not true.

 

[fluffypaste]

They will grill him so hard on the stand over having pulled that trigger that it will be hard for him to testify but I think the jury would expect him to testify...2 Cents

Oh yeah, he definitely needs to testify. Like I said, I could easily this going either way, but it's going to hinge on how sympathetic the jury feels.

Getting grilled harshly on the stand might be the best thing for him because it could get him as distraught as possible in front of the jury.

 

[Cool Cats]

Oh yeah, he definitely needs to testify. Like I said, I could easily this going either way, but it's going to hinge on how sympathetic the jury feels.

Getting grilled harshly on the stand might be the best thing for him because it could get him as distraught as possible in front of the jury.

I read about how he is this seasoned actor who could be all great dealing with spontaneity on the stand.

No.

These are prosecutors who will be all over him - countering with their experts and evidence - like starving dogs on bones. He will start strong then get tripped up and his powerhouse defense team will be yelling "Objection" left and right.

Complete mess he will make of it but blame his attorneys.

Alec = Famous Temper

2 Cents ... How it looks to me

 

[Forest_Wood]

I believe that he believes he didn't pull the trigger. He obviously did pull it or at least touch it, but I don't believe he was lying when he said he didn't pull it. I think it is just a matter of the shock of the moment, combined with the natural inclination to want to deny such a thing, even to oneself.

Yes, and he even stated during his first interrogation that the gun did not have any kickback after it shot.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Yah. Didn't she text that she got high around that day?

Was that the same day? I suppose if she got high one day on set, then it likely happened more than once! She certainly seemed like she was coming down from something after the shooting in those interviews. MOO.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I read about how he is this seasoned actor who could be all great dealing with spontaneity on the stand.

No.

These are prosecutors who will be all over him - countering with their experts and evidence - like starving dogs on bones. He will start strong then get tripped up and his powerhouse defense team will be yelling "Objection" left and right.

Complete mess he will make of it but blame his attorneys.

Alec = Famous Temper

2 Cents ... How it looks to me

If he testifies he's toast!

There is way too much that he has said that is demonstrably false. I can't think of anything he could possibly say to counter what he's said up to now.

I'm sure that his defence team will shout a lot about the fact that the FBI broke the gun during their testing and will claim that that fact warrants the case being thrown out. It's garbage, of course, because the gun was brand new and in perfect working order at the time of the shooting. The very fact that the FBI did actually break it trying to get it to discharge is perfect evidence that it was working as it was designed to work over 150 years ago.

 

[Cool Cats]

Was that the same day? I suppose if she got high one day on set, then it likely happened more than once! She certainly seemed like she was coming down from something after the shooting in those interviews. MOO.

'Rust' Armorer's Alleged Drug Use Can Be Included at Trial

The rookie "Rust" armorer charged with involuntary manslaughter failed to get a cocaine-related tampering charge and "weed" texts tossed before trial

www.rollingstone.com

“The relevant ones are the one where she’s smoking weed with ammo in the hotel room, and that she’s smoking in the jacuzzi,” the judge said during the nearly 90-minute pre-trial hearing. Among the texts that Gutierrez-Reed sent to a crew member the evening of Oct. 20, 2021, were, “I might go smoke in the jacuzzi soon,” and, “Headed down to get high out back.”

 

[turaj]

I think there’s enough evidence to convict Alec, but I wonder if he has acted that way in previous films. Maybe there will be other people from films saying that there was a pattern of similar behaviour on previous movie sets.

He has some violent altercations in his past where he was the aggressor. It’s unlikely they’ll be introduced at his trial but maybe that will also work against him.

would that kind of evidence be able to come in if they could actually get some to come forth with that testimony? Is there not some rules of. evidence about "prior bad acts" and most of the time that can't come in?

 

[Cool Cats]

If he testifies he's toast!

There is way too much that he has said that is demonstrably false. I can't think of anything he could possibly say to counter what he's said up to now.

I'm sure that his defence team will shout a lot about the fact that the FBI broke the gun during their testing and will claim that that fact warrants the case being thrown out. It's garbage, of course, because the gun was brand new and in perfect working order at the time of the shooting. The very fact that the FBI did actually break it trying to get it to discharge is perfect evidence that it was working as it was designed to work over 150 years ago.

I couldn't be on this jury because I believe his incriminating media statements.

By saying "He would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger"

It shows me that he feels he is responsible because he did do that.

He pointed a gun at a person and the gun went off. Point is, bad gun or not, hair trigger or not, it was pointed by him and went off due to something he himself did.

If he said he was just following instructions and was told to point and shoot and thought it was a cold gun, this is different to me. As an actor you do what your told and believe the gun is "Cold" when told.

 

[turaj]

'Rust' Armorer's Alleged Drug Use Can Be Included at Trial

The rookie "Rust" armorer charged with involuntary manslaughter failed to get a cocaine-related tampering charge and "weed" texts tossed before trial

www.rollingstone.com

“The relevant ones are the one where she’s smoking weed with ammo in the hotel room, and that she’s smoking in the jacuzzi,” the judge said during the nearly 90-minute pre-trial hearing. Among the texts that Gutierrez-Reed sent to a crew member the evening of Oct. 20, 2021, were, “I might go smoke in the jacuzzi soon,” and, “Headed down to get high out back.”

I would have really liked a tox screen on HGR that day. As I understand it never happened.

 

[turaj]

This is a good point. If he is of the opinion that she wasn't doing her job then that's even less reason to trust what she says!

I think AB is in his own world...if not on the phone....shooting a scene. Doubt he spent much time observing the chaos on set.

 

[Cool Cats]

would that kind of evidence be able to come in if they could actually get some to come forth with that testimony? Is there not some rules of. evidence about "prior bad acts" and most of the time that can't come in?

I was reading about a Case recently where this guy on trial has a list of "Bad Acts" but the jury won't see them because there are no actual convictions on his record.

It is a Case by Case proposition. Never allowed into Alec's trial I believe.

His personality isn't going on trial....can't convict someone because they were a jerk to work with.